review of u.s. fish & wildlife service hatcheries in washington, … · 2013-06-26 · the...

\

Pacific Region Hatchery Review Team

Review of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Hatcheries

in Washington, Oregon and Idaho

Region-Wide Issues, Guidelines and

Recommendations

Final Report

May 2013

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region

Snake River Lower Columbia

Mid-Columbia Olympic Peninsula

Please cite as:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Review of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hatcheries

in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Region-Wide Issues, Guidelines and Recommendations, March

2013. Hatchery Review Team, Pacific Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

Available at: http://www.fws.gov/Pacific/fisheries/Hatcheryreview/reports.html.

http://www.fws.gov/Pacific/fisheries/

USFWS PACIFIC REGION HATCHERY REVIEW TEAM REGION-WIDE ISSUES, GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS – MAY 2013

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface .................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4

Region-Wide Issues ............................................................................................. 7

PRINCIPLES OF STRATEGIC HATCHERY MANAGEMENT ........................................................ 7

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................... 7

Issue 1: Establish Well Defined Goals. ................................................................................... 7

Issue 2: Ensuring Scientific Defensibility in Future Decisions ............................................... 8

Issue 3: Planning Documents and Multi-Year Comanager Agreements ............................... 10

Issue 4: Hatchery Evaluation Teams ..................................................................................... 11

Issue 5: Fish Culture Best Management Practices ................................................................. 11

Issue 6: Outreach Best Practices ............................................................................................ 12

Issue 7: Mark/Tag and Tag-Recovery Strategies ................................................................... 13

Issue 8: Pollution Abatement and Management of Hatchery Effluent .................................. 14

Issue 9: Water Use and Reporting ......................................................................................... 15

Issue 10: Climate Change ...................................................................................................... 15

PROTOCOLS, PROCEDURES, AND DATA MANAGEMENT ...................................................... 16

Issue 11: Reports and Documentation ................................................................................... 16

Issue 12: Comanagers Working at Service Hatcheries .......................................................... 17

Issue 13: Standard Operating Procedures .............................................................................. 17

Issue 14: Monitoring and Evaluation Standards .................................................................... 18

Issue 15: Data Management ................................................................................................... 18

Issue 16: Sharing Hatchery Program Data Externally ........................................................... 19

RESEARCH .......................................................................................................................... 20

Issue 17: Research Needs ...................................................................................................... 20

CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 22

Appendices ......................................................................................................... 23

APPENDIX A: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SALMON AND STEELHEAD CULTURE

(ISSUE 5) ............................................................................................................................ 23

APPENDIX B: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR OUTREACH (ISSUE 6) ......................... 31

APPENDIX C: MANAGING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE (ISSUE 10) ............................................. 35

USFWS COLUMBIA BASIN HATCHERY REVIEW TEAM DRAFT REGION-WIDE ISSUES DOCUMENT – SEPTEMBER 2010

ii Table of Contents

APPENDIX D: RECOMMENDED ELEMENTS OF A STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

MANUAL (ISSUE 13) ............................................................................................................ 36

USFWS PACIFIC REGION HATCHERY REVIEW TEAM Region-Wide Issues, Guidelines and Recommendations – May 2013

Preface 3

PREFACE

The guidelines and recommendations presented in this report address issues common to many U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) hatcheries in the Pacific Region. These assessments represent

independent evaluations by the Hatchery Review Team (Team) based on the most current scientific

information available and the collective knowledge of its members. The Team recognizes, however,

that socio-economic and other factors must be considered as part of the overall implementation

process. The Team further recognizes that the Service needs to respect existing agreements with

comanagers and that the U.S. v Oregon and U.S. v Washington processes are the legal forums for

comanagers to define or modify hatchery programs in the Columbia River Basin and western

Washington, respectively. The concepts of hatchery reform – as embodied in the guidelines and

recommendations in the report presented here – can best be described as strategic hatchery

management. The Review Team looks forward to the Service working with comanagers to advance

forward the principles of strategic hatchery management for supporting conservation goals and

sustainable fisheries consistent with the Service’s Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) policy.1

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Strategic Habitat Conservation. A Guide to Implementing the Technical

Elements of Strategic Habitat Conservation (Version 1.0). Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/landscape-conservation/.


4 Introduction

INTRODUCTION

Habitat alterations, hydroelectric development, and consumptive fisheries in the past 150 years have

reduced the viabilities of natural populations of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and steelhead (O.

mykiss) in the Pacific Northwest.2 To mitigate for these impacts, hatcheries have been used to increase

the number of fish available for harvest. However, conflicts between harvest goals and conservation

goals have raised questions regarding the benefits and risks of hatcheries, thus warranting reviews of

the future role of hatcheries in region-wide management and conservation strategies.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) initiated, in October 2005, a review of 21 salmon and

steelhead hatcheries that the Service owns or operates in the Columbia River Basin. That review was

expanded in 2008 to include three National Fish Hatcheries (NFHs) on the Olympic Peninsula of

Washington State. The purpose of the review was to ensure that Service hatcheries are operated in

accordance with best scientific principles, consistent with conservation and harvest goals for both

hatchery-propagated and natural populations. The Service’s review was modeled after the Puget Sound

and Coastal Washington Hatchery Review Project conducted by the Hatchery Scientific Review

Group (HSRG).3 The Service’s review of individual programs and hatcheries was completed in

January, 2011.4

The Service’s review was initiated in 2005 when the Assistant Regional Director for Fisheries

(Fisheries ARD)5 assembled a Pacific Region Hatchery Review Team (Review Team). This Review

Team was composed of Service scientists and project leaders, a representative from NOAA Fisheries,

and additional scientists as desired for specific regions. The Service contracted for project facilitation

with Long Live the Kings (LLTK).6

Review Team members responsible for the region-wide report presented here are:

Don Campton (Co-Chair), Science Advisor, USFWS, Regional Office, Portland, Oregon

(formerly at: Abernathy Fish Technology Center, Longview, Washington)

Douglas DeHart (Co-Chair), Fish Biologist, USFWS, Regional Office, Portland, Oregon

(retired). Current address: Coffee Creek Bioscience, Oregon City, Oregon

2 The viabilities of Pacific salmon and steelhead populations are defined in terms of four parameters: productivity,

abundance, spatial structure and diversity. Reference: McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionary significant unites. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156p. Available at: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/5561_06162004_143739_tm42.pdf .

3 For more information on this latter project and publications: www.hatcheryreform.org and www.hatcheryreform.us .

4 Reports available at: www.fws.gov/Pacific/fisheries/hatcheryreview . For an overview of the review process, see:

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/fisheries/hatcheryreview/Reports/final%20docs/Federal%20Hatchery%20Review%20Summary%20Document_29Oct2010.pdf .

5 Daniel H. Diggs (ret.), Assistant Regional Director for Fisheries, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Portland, Oregon: 1989-2009.

6 LLTK is a non-profit organization, based in Seattle, WA, devoted to restoring wild salmon to the waters of the Pacific

Northwest. LLTK also provided facilitation, communications and coordination for the Puget Sound and Coastal Washington Hatchery Review Project.

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/5561_06162004_143739_tm42.pdf

http://www.hatcheryreform.org/

http://www.hatcheryreform.us/

http://www.fws.gov/Pacific/fisheries/hatcheryreview

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/fisheries/hatcheryreview/Reports/final%20docs/Federal%20Hatchery%20Review%20Summary%20Document_29Oct2010.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/fisheries/hatcheryreview/Reports/final%20docs/Federal%20Hatchery%20Review%20Summary%20Document_29Oct2010.pdf


Introduction 5

Ray Brunson, Fish Health Biologist, USFWS, Olympia Fish Health Center, Olympia,

Washington (retired)

Tom Flagg, Supervisory Fish Biologist, NOAA Fisheries, Manchester Research Station,

Manchester, Washington

Susan Gutenberger, Supervisory Fish Biologist - Health, USFWS, Lower Columbia River

Fish Health Center, Willard, Washington

Joe Krakker, Fishery Biologist, USFWS, Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Office,

Boise, Idaho

Bryan Kenworthy, Project Leader and Manager, USFWS, Hagerman National Fish Hatchery,

Hagerman, Idaho (retired)

Larry Marchant, Project Leader and Manager, USFWS, Spring Creek NFH, Underwood,

Washington (retired)

Doug Olson, Supervisory Fish Biologist - Hatchery Assessment Team Leader, USFWS,

Columbia River Fisheries Program Office, Vancouver, Washington.

Chris Pasley, Project Leader and Manager, USFWS, Winthrop NFH, Winthrop, Washington

Herb Pollard, Fish Biologist and Management Specialist, Independent Consultant, Boise,

Idaho (formerly Fish Biologist, NOAA Fisheries)

Larry Telles, Project Leader and Manager, USFWS, Eagle Creek NFH, Estacada Oregon.

Current address; USFWS, Regional Office, Portland, Oregon

Dave Zajac, Supervisory Fish and Wildlife Biologist, USFWS, Washington State Fisheries

Resources Office, Lacey, Washington (retired).

Facilitation and outreach support were provided by:

Michael Schmidt (Facilitator), Director of Fish Programs, Long Live the Kings, Seattle,

Washington

Cheri Anderson (Outreach), Information and Education Manager, USFWS, Spring Creek

NFH, Underwood, Washington.

The Fisheries ARD also appointed, in 2005, a Hatchery Oversight Team (Oversight Team) consisting

of line supervisors in the Service’s Regional Office with fisheries policy and managerial

responsibilities for the Service. The Oversight Team monitored the review progress, transmitted

communications and reports from the Review Team to the Fisheries ARD and other offices of the

Service’s Fisheries Program, and provided policy oversight.

To conduct its reviews, the Review Team adapted the scientific framework, principles and analytical

tools of the HSRG. The two co-chairs of the Review Team provided continuity with the HSRG

because they served on the HSRG and the Policy Coordinating Committee, respectively, for the Puget

Sound and coastal Washington hatchery review process.

The Team first reviewed the Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery (NFH) in the Deschutes River

watershed (Warm Springs River) of Oregon. That review served as a pilot to “field-test”, and refine,

the review process. The Team then reviewed programs and facilities of all federal hatcheries in each of

four major regions (Fig. 1). The Service completed its reviews of 15 National Fish Hatcheries in July

2009 and nine federally owned, state-operated hatcheries in the Snake River region in January, 2011.


6 Introduction

Figure 1. Regions of the Pacific Region Hatchery Review Project

The Region-Wide Report presented here addresses issues that were common among most programs

and hatcheries reviewed by the Team. The “Region-Wide Report” presented here lists 17 issues and

provides science-based guidelines and/or recommendations for addressing each issue. These issues,

guidelines and recommendations compose three major categories: (1) program management; (2)

protocols, procedures, and data management; and (3) research.

Warm Springs NFH

Snake River Lower Columbia

Mid-Columbia Olympic Peninsula


Region-Wide Issues 7

REGION-WIDE ISSUES

PRINCIPLES OF STRATEGIC HATCHERY MANAGEMENT

The Hatchery Review Team adapted the three principles of hatchery reform developed previously by

the HSRG.7 Those three principles, as adapted by the Team, provided the foundation for the guidelines

and recommendations described in the report presented here. Those principles are:

1. Every hatchery-propagated population and program must have well-defined goals described in

terms of intended benefits and purposes (e.g., harvest, conservation, research, education);

2. Hatchery programs must be scientifically defensible; and

3. Hatchery programs must respond adaptively to new information.

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Issue 1: Establish Well Defined Goals.

Hatcheries represent a technology for achieving comanager goals for a renewable, biological resource.

Goals are the desired product (or end result) of an action or process. Quantified goals provide

benchmarks by which progress and success can be measured. The intent of most hatchery programs is

to provide harvest or conservation benefits, although many programs also provide research, cultural, or

education benefits.

The Team observed that goals for many hatchery programs were described qualitatively (e.g., “support

harvest”), or they reflected legal mitigation agreements that did not explicitly describe benefits (e.g.,

“release 500,000 smolts”, or “return 12,000 hatchery-origin adult fish upstream of Lower Granite

Dam”).8 Defining and evaluating success are difficult when goals are not quantified or described in

terms of intended benefits. For example, a hatchery program can be very successful at meeting a

mitigation goal by returning a specific number of hatchery-origin adult fish to a particular location, but

a harvest benefit may not occur because of fishery management restrictions. Conversely, a hatchery

program can be very successful at providing harvest benefits even when a “mitigation goal” is not

achieved.

7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Pacific Region Federal Hatchery Review. Principles. October 15, 2005.

Hatchery Review Team, Pacific Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/Pacific/fisheries/Hatcheryreview/ .

8 Most hatchery programs for salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest are based on authorizing legislations that

were expressed in terms of the number of juvenile fish to be released or the number of hatchery-origin adult fish desired to return to a particular location. The purpose of those legislative agreements was primarily to mitigate for loss of habitat and natural-origin fish caused by the construction and operation of hydropower dams. Mitigation goals were established many years ago under conditions that differ from those today. Since then, many hatchery programs have been modified in response to listings of several aquatic species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) and changing conservation and harvest priorities.

http://www.fws.gov/Pacific/fisheries/Hatcheryreview/


8 Region-Wide Issues

Guideline:

Define goals explicitly for each hatchery-propagated population, and for each hatchery

program, in terms of intended conservation and harvest benefits. Goals should:

Define, quantitatively, intended benefits (harvest, conservation, research, education,

cultural, etc.) by which success can be measured and evaluated;

Include short-term (1-10 years) and long-term (10-50 years) time frames to provide

guidance for both current and future management decisions;

Be consistent with harvest and conservation goals for other stocks and populations within

the same region.

Goals for each hatchery program will be constrained by several factors including the physical

capacities of a hatchery and the ecological constraints of the local watershed. Short-term goals

should be attainable under current conditions, while long-term goals may depend on future

contingencies (e.g., habitat improvements). If goals are expressed quantitatively, then benchmarks

can be established for measuring progress towards achieving those goals. Benchmarks also

provide a mechanism for identifying the need for program modifications when those benchmarks

are not achieved. Defining goals quantitatively allows comanagers to define success in terms of

benefits that are measurable and realistically attainable.

Examples:

Conservation programs

Return a minimum of 250 naturally-spawning, natural-origin spring Chinook to the Fish

River annually.

Recover the natural spring Chinook population in the Fish River to a geometric mean

number of 250 natural-origin spawners over a 10-year (two-generation) period.

Use the hatchery program to maintain a genetic effective population size of at least 500

adults per generation.

Harvest programs

Contribute a minimum of 2,000 adult spring Chinook to Columbia River sport and tribal

fisheries annually.

Contribute a 10-year running average of 1,000 adult steelhead per year to Clearwater

River and lower Snake River sport, tribal, and commercial fisheries.

Support a minimum of 5,000 angler-days to Salmon River sport fisheries annually.

Issue 2: Ensuring Scientific Defensibility in Future Decisions

Pacific salmon and steelhead display a wide range of life history and biological characteristics that are

both geographic-specific and population-specific (e.g., run timing, genetic-olfactory mechanisms of

homing, etc.). Based on those characteristics, fish biologists have established culture protocols and

management guidelines intended to maximize the survival of individual fish and the viability of

hatchery-propagated populations. Protocols inconsistent with those guidelines (e.g., rearing densities

that exceed fish culture guidelines) can decrease post-release survivals of hatchery-origin fish and

increase biological risks to naturally spawning populations.



The Review Team examined the scientific defensibility of current hatchery programs and fish culture

protocols relative to the best scientific information available. The Review Team found some instances

where culture guidelines were not strictly followed (e.g., rearing densities of juvenile fish exceeded

guidelines) or management actions had not been sufficiently justified scientifically (e.g., the transfer

and release of fish between watersheds). In some cases, management actions had been implemented

without adequate benefit-risk assessments or the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) necessary to

determine whether the presumed benefits of the action were ever achieved.

Guidelines:

1. Follow science-based culture guidelines designed to maximize population viabilities, fish

health, and adult returns.

2. Conduct appropriate benefit-risk assessments of proposed management actions (e.g., transfer

and release of fish between watersheds) to determine the likelihood that the proposed action

will achieve the intended benefits relative to the risks imposed.

3. Ensure management actions are consistent with the biological characteristics of the cultured

species.

4. Ensure that culture protocols and management actions are consistent with current scientific

information (e.g., scientific literature, fish health guidelines, and other science-based

information).

5. Explicitly state hypotheses and assumptions to identify and resolve uncertainties. For

example, the likelihood of achieving a specific objective increases when planners/managers

explicitly state - and understand - the biological assumptions that need to be true if a proposed

management action is to achieve the intended benefits of those actions. Similarly, benefits can

only be documented if M&E are included as essential components of every hatchery program,

particularly with respect to assessing whether the realized benefits outweigh known risks. The

likelihood of achieving comanager goals will be maximized if programs are managed

adaptively in response to new information.

Recommendations:

1. Continue to use Hatchery Evaluation Teams (HETs) to enhance adaptive management

processes (Issue 4).

2. Establish and maintain a suite of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Pacific Region’s

hatchery programs (Issue 5).9

3. Establish a Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) of Service personnel with complementary

expertises and experiences from throughout the region. The advisory panel would:

Include representatives from each Hatchery Evaluation Team (HET) and the Abernathy

Fish Technology Center.

9The Service defines a BMP as “a practice or combination of practices that industry generally accepts as the most

effective and advanced means to maintain superior performance and which advances leadership” (USFWS 2002. Director’s Order No. 144. Greening the Service through Environmental Leadership.). Many of the recommendations presented here by the Hatchery Review Team in this region-wide report, and in the regional reports for specific hatcheries, represent BMPs derived from other documents that were – in turn - based on reviews of the scientific literature. (e.g., Integrated Hatchery Operations Team. 1995. Policies and Procedures for Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries. Report to Bonneville Power Administration. Contract No. 1992BI60629, Project No. 199204300, 119 p. BPA Report DOE/BP-60629).



Address science issues for Service hatchery programs from a region-wide perspective,

including identification of major uncertainties and research needs (see Issue 17);

Function as an ad hoc committee to respond to specific requests from the Service’s

Assistant Regional Director (ARD) for Fishery Resources for guidance on technical

issues that may have policy implications (e.g., proposed rearing of a new species or

population at a particular hatchery);

Assist Service managers and HETs with using the best scientific information available to

assess the likely benefits and risks of proposed management actions before

implementation;

Produce reports that document the outcomes of benefit-risk assessments as a permanent

record of the decision-making process.

Issue 3: Planning Documents and Multi-Year Comanager Agreements

The Service and comanagers use several planning documents and agreements to meet legal,

operational, and funding needs (e.g., HGMPs, CHMPs, SOPs, AOPs).10

The Team observed, for many

programs, that no single document included all the information necessary for the Team to fully

understand the program. Some programs appeared to be managed on a year-to-year basis without a

multi-year agreement or lead document.

Guideline:

Use multi-year comanager agreements and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) to maintain

consistency and accountability of hatchery programs. Agreements and MOUs would ideally

encompass program operations, facility maintenance, and funding. The time duration of

agreements should be related biologically to the life history of the propagated stock (e.g., 1 to

2 salmon generations, 3 to 10 years, etc.) and specific goals of the program.

Recommendations:

1. Identify one management document for each program as the recognized lead plan to guide

operations and contingency planning/decisions during the working time period of that plan.

This lead document would describe conservation and harvest goals (Issue 1) agreed upon by

comanagers, mitigation goals, ESA compliance, and legal agreements (US v OR, US v WA,

US Canada Treaty, etc.).11

This lead document would provide a common understanding

among comanagers, the scientific community, and the general public regarding the goals,

methods, and justification for the program.

2. Update the plans at least every five years or whenever a major change in the program occurs.

10 Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs), Comprehensive Hatchery Management Plans (CHMPs), Standard

Operating Procedures (SOPs), Annual Operating Plans (AOPs). 11 For example, the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) office in Boise, Idaho is establishing the HGMP as

the comprehensive planning document for their programs and the basis of agreements with the Service’s comanagers. Another example is the Five-Year Hatchery Operation and Implementation Plan for the spring Chinook program at Warm Springs NFH.



Issue 4: Hatchery Evaluation Teams

The Service has maintained active Hatchery Evaluation Teams (HETs) for each National Fish

Hatchery in the Pacific Region since 1991. Each HET is composed of key technical personnel from

the respective hatchery and responsible Fishery Resource Office (FRO) and Fish Health Center (FHC)

of the Service. Regular meetings of the HET facilitate communication and coordination of activities

among Service offices and staffs.

Activities and decisions requiring coordination among offices and personnel include the following: (a)

tagging/marking of fish, (b) data collection management and reporting, (c) number of adult fish to be

spawned, (d) number of juvenile fish to be raised and released, (e) fish ponding densities and

protocols, (f) disposition of excess juvenile fish on station, (g) fish health monitoring, and (h)

implementation of Hatchery Review Team recommendations. HETs can also play a very important

communication role, both within the Service and between the Service and comanaging partners. The

HET concept is distinct from coordination teams which generally include non-Service cooperators.12

The Review Team observed that the functions, responsibilities, and authorities of HETs vary among

hatcheries. In addition, HETs do not exist for federally-owned, state-operated hatcheries that are

funded through the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP).

Guideline:

HETs are most effective region-wide when their compositions, functions, and responsibilities

are consistent among hatcheries, with each HET (a) composed of staff from the respective

hatchery (usually the manager and deputy), the responsible Fishery Resource Office, and the

responsible Fish Health Center, and (b) convening at least twice annually, or as often as

necessary, to plan and coordinate all activities for achieving the goals and objectives of the

program. Staff from the Abernathy Fish Technology Center (AFTC) can provide desirable

scientific expertise at HET meetings, especially when technical questions are expected to arise

which AFTC staff may be best positioned to address. Recording and distribution of

minutes/decisions at HET meetings enhances region-wide participation and transparency.

Recommendation:

Establish HETs for state-operated, LSRCP hatcheries. The HET for each state-operated

LSRCP hatchery and program would ideally include representatives from all LSRCP

comanaging agencies and tribes that contribute operationally to the program.

Issue 5: Fish Culture Best Management Practices

The scientific literature, regional fish culture guidelines, and professional expertises of Service

personnel largely determine the fish culture protocols implemented at each National Fish Hatchery.

However, the Review Team observed that some fish culture practices varied among programs and

hatcheries. To reduce this variability, the Team used IHOT guidelines and other fish culture standards

to identify best management practices (BMPs) as a foundation for program-specific

12 HETs include technical representatives from comanaging partners for facilities and programs that are cooperatively

operated, such as Dworshak NFH complex and Warm Springs NFH.



recommendations.13

Best management practices (a) can be established for all program components

(e.g., fish culture, outreach and communications, facility maintenance, etc.), (b) help maintain

credibility and consistency among programs, (c) represent guidelines based upon best available

science, and (d) should be reviewed periodically in response to new scientific information.

Recommendation:

Establish comprehensive BMPs for fish culture that acknowledge site-specific variability (e.g.,

water chemistry and temperature) but are implemented in a consistent manner at all federal

hatcheries in the Pacific Region. The Team has developed a preliminary list of BMPs as a

starting point for further development based on the scientific literature, the professional

experiences of Team members, and additional knowledge gained over the course of the

regional reviews of Service hatcheries (Appendix A)14

.

Issue 6: Outreach Best Practices

The Service’s Division of External Affairs and the outreach programs of the Fisheries Program play

critical roles informing stakeholders and the general public about the mission, outcomes, and

contributions of federal hatcheries in the Pacific Region. These outreach programs assist with

educational displays at the Visitor’s Centers at each National Fish Hatchery, provide informational

materials to the public, and host special events (e.g., Kids Fishing Days, salmon festivals, etc.).

The Review Team and Service outreach staff15

propose the following guidelines as best management

practices for outreach programs at federal hatcheries in the Pacific Region (see Appendix B for

additional details).

Guidelines:

1. The following four elements provide a foundation for outreach messages for each program at

each Service hatchery:

a. Description of the program: (i) history of the program, (ii) justification for the program

(Why is it important?), (iii) current goals of the program, (iv) general biology and life

history of the propagated species, (v) importance of the propagated population or stock to

the conservation of fishery resources in the local watershed and the Pacific region, and

(vi) general summary of fish culture operations for the program (e.g., broodstock

collection, adult spawning, egg incubation, juvenile rearing, etc.).

b. Description of the realized benefits of the program, quantified where possible. For

example: (i) number of program fish harvested in recreational, commercial and tribal

fisheries, (ii) number of natural-origin adult recruits passed upstream at the facility, (iii)

contribution of the program towards long-term conservation goals of the propagated

13 The Team adapted the Service definition of a BMP (Issue No. 2, Guideline No. 8) explicitly for fish culture as a

“hatchery-related procedure, protocol, or practice which has proven to be beneficial in terms of reducing risks and maximizing benefits to hatchery and natural-origin salmonid stocks.” In most cases, benefits or risks resulting from fish culture practices either increase or decrease the expected viability and/or sustainability of the populations (hatchery or wild) affected by those practices. For example, increasing the viability of a hatchery-propagated population increases the expected number of harvestable fish.

14 See also program-specific fish culture recommendations in the regional reports for each hatchery at:

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/Fisheries/hatcheryreview/reports.html .

15 This section was co-developed with Pacific Region outreach staff, Amy Gaskill and Cheri Anderson.

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/Fisheries/hatcheryreview/reports.html



population, and (iv) additional conservation or research/monitoring benefits afforded by

the hatchery program.

c. Description of actions taken by the Service and comanagers to manage or reduce

biological and environmental risks. Of special concern here are interactions between

hatchery-origin fish and ESA-listed natural populations, the environmental effects of

water withdrawals for fish culture, and discharge of hatchery effluent water into streams

and open waters.

d. Description of the legal obligations of the Service. The Team believes that the general

public needs to understand the definition of “mitigation” as it relates to the legal

obligations of the Service to offset or mitigate the impacts of federal hydropower and

other water development projects on natural populations of anadromous salmonid fishes

and other aquatic species (e.g., Pacific lamprey). In this context, service hatcheries

contribute significantly to the conservation of fishery resources via direct contributions to

harvest and the maintenance of populations that might otherwise have been extirpated in

the absence of hatchery propagation (e.g., Dworshak B-run steelhead on the North Fork

Clearwater River).

2. Outreach messages are most effective when local audiences, constituencies, and stakeholders

are identified for each hatchery, and program messages are communicated strategically to

those audiences. The Pacific Region represents a wide diversity of people and social interests

ranging from the highly urbanized communities of Portland, Oregon and the Puget Sound

Area to the agrarian communities of eastern Washington and Oregon. Throughout all these

regions, Native American Tribes play key roles to help conserve fishery resources. Outreach

messages can be tailored geographically to reflect this cultural diversity.

3. Outreach messages provide unique opportunities for the Service to cooperate with comanagers

and stakeholders for sharing the latest information available with the public. One-page “fact

sheets” are one method to accurately provide important background information and recent

statistics about each program (e.g., number of adult broodstock trapped and spawned, number

of juvenile fish released, contributions to harvest, etc.). Hatchery-specific websites provide

additional opportunities for posting up-to-date fact sheets, brochures, monthly reports, and

operational plans (e.g., HGMPs) for direct access by the public. Environmental education can

be an important highlight at each facility.

Issue 7: Mark/Tag and Tag-Recovery Strategies

Scientific management of fishery resources requires the reoccurring measurement of

biological parameters and statistical analysis of new data (e.g., post-release survival rates,

contributions of hatchery fish to fisheries, and survival rates of different experimental groups

of fish reared at hatcheries). Obtaining those data most often requires the application of

marks (e.g., fin clips) or tags (e.g., coded-wire tags, DNA markers) to different stocks of fish

that allow those stocks, including hatchery and natural-origin fish, to be distinguished.

Marking and tagging of hatchery fish is an important tool used in monitoring and evaluation

(M&E) of hatchery programs. Comprehensive M&E of hatchery programs allow fishery

biologists to determine whether (a) intended benefits are realized, (b) programmatic goals are

achieved, and (c) realized benefits outweigh risks. These latter outcomes are achievable

when M&E focuses on assessing the intended benefits and known risks defined by the goals

and management actions of the program. M&E also provides a feed-back loop to goals and



methods: when intended benefits are not realized or when risks outweigh benefits, then goals

and/or methods can be adjusted or changed to increase the likelihood of achieving benefits

and/or reducing risks. Adaptive management and informed decision making occur through

M&E.

Guidelines:

1. Systematically use marks, tags, or DNA markers to distinguish hatchery-origin and natural-

origin fish. Review mark, tag, and recovery programs annually to identify needs and rectify

deficiencies.

2. In situations where not all hatchery-origin fish can be marked, tagged, or identified genetically

(e.g., via DNA markers), an adequate number or proportion of fish will need to be marked,

tagged, or distinguished genetically to provide statistically-valid results in mark/tag recovery

data. Statisticians can help design tag recovery programs to maximize statistical efficiency and

power.

3. Marking and tagging programs are successful if they include sufficient recovery effort, data

processing, and reporting support to make use of the information. The principles of scientific

defensibility apply to marking/tagging programs also (Issue 2).

Issue 8: Pollution Abatement and Management of Hatchery Effluent

Maintaining high water quality in streams and rivers is a high priority of the Service. Service

hatcheries need to meet water discharge and monitoring requirements to receive a National Pollution

Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES) under the U.S. Clean Water Act. Several agencies are

responsible for regulating these processes: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has

jurisdiction (called primacy) in Idaho, on tribal lands in Oregon and Washington, and for federal

facilities in Washington. The state of Oregon has primacy for state and federal facilities within its state

borders. Each jurisdiction has different regulatory requirements for water discharge.

Guidelines:

1. A collaborative working relationship - at both the regional and field levels – between the

Service and both the EPA and the responsible state agencies can help ensure federal hatcheries

in the Pacific Region are addressing water quality issues proactively. This collaboration is

particularly important during the NPDES permit renewal process and for establishing a Total

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for a particular pollutant and water body.16

EPA may consult

with the Service or NOAA Fisheries during the issuance/renewal of an NPDES permit,

consistent with provisions of the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA).17

2. Hatchery staffs need to be adequately trained in water sampling methods, water quality

monitoring, and effluent management consistent with the requirements of the NPDES permit.

16 Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires States to identify water bodies or stream segments that are

water quality limited on the 303(d) List. Once listed, a State is required to quantify the amount of a specific pollutant that a listed water body can assimilate without violating applicable water quality standards and to apportion that allowable quantity among the different pollutant sources. This maximum allowable pollutant quantity that a water body can receive is referred to as the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).

17 The Service has the opportunity to provide formal comments on draft NPDES permits.



Comprehensive Condition Assessments, conducted every five years by the Service, should

include assessments of the effluent treatment infrastructure at each respective facility.

Issue 9: Water Use and Reporting

The Service has obtained water rights, consistent with state and federal laws, to divert water for fish

culture at each federally-owned hatchery. Accurately measuring and reporting the quantity of water

diverted for fish culture in necessary to retain those water rights.

Recommendations:

1. The Team recommends that Service hydrologists review water management at all National

Fish Hatcheries and state-operated LSRCP fish hatcheries. These reviews should include

evaluation of water measuring devices and reporting procedures to ensure that water diverted

for fish culture is measured and reported consistent with Service and State standards.

2. Maintain, at each hatchery, Owner of Record documents for the waters rights at each

respective facility.

Issue 10: Climate Change

Climate change models predict increases in mean air temperature throughout the Pacific Northwest.

Those models also predict increases in mean annual precipitation in some regions and decreases in

mean annual precipitation in other regions. In general, more water is predicted to be available during

the winter and less water available during the summer, largely from more precipitation falling as rain

and less precipitation falling as snow. The general expectation is that climate change will result in (a)

changes in the geographic distributions of anadromous salmonid fishes, (b) spatial-temporal shifts in

their respective life histories, particularly related to migration and spawn timing of adults, and (c)

increased risks of disease. Marine migration patterns and overall smolt-to-adult survivals may also be

affected.

The Service has recently completed qualitative, climate change vulnerability assessments for all

National Fish Hatcheries nationwide, as specified by the Service’s Climate Change Action Priorities

(CCAP) for Fiscal Years 2010-2011. As a follow-up to those qualitative assessments, the Service has

initiated more detailed quantitative assessments of climate change vulnerability at each National Fish

Hatchery in the Pacific Region.

Recommendations:

1. Complete quantitative, climate change vulnerability assessments for all National Fish

Hatcheries in the Pacific Region.

2. Develop a climate change management plan for each Service hatchery in the Pacific Region

based on the results of the vulnerability assessment, the recommendations outlined by Hanson

and Ostrand (2011)18

, and other relevant materials. Development of these plans could be

accomplished by a task team that includes Service biologists, managers, and non-Service

18 Hanson, K.C., and K.G. Ostrand. 2011. Potential effects of global climate change on National Fish Hatchery

operations in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 1:175-186.



technical experts (e.g., Tribal biologists, NOAA Fisheries scientists). A subset of the

recommendations by Hanson and Ostrand (2011) is presented in Appendix C.

PROTOCOLS, PROCEDURES, AND DATA MANAGEMENT

Issue 11: Reports and Documentation

Hatchery programs generate large amounts of information and data. Some of this information

represents the results of routine monitoring (e.g., calculation of fish rearing density indexes in

raceways), while other data are generated from designed experiments or studies (e.g., feeding trials).

All of these various types of information are usually summarized in different types of station reports

(e.g., monthly reports, annual reports, and study reports).

The Review Team observed variation among hatcheries in the format and content of station reports.

Some reports were very comprehensive while others lacked important information (e.g., statement of

goals, benefit-risk assessments, etc.). In some cases, station reports and other documents were not

easily accessible or were out of date

Guidelines:

1. Ensure that reports and decisional documents include descriptions of goals and intended

benefits of the program or proposed action(s).

2. Include the results of benefit-risk assessments and policy considerations in decisional

documents that report programmatic changes or new management actions (e.g., transfer of fish

to new release sites). These documents should also describe the M&E plan and actions

necessary for (a) assessing whether intended benefits are realized and risks are properly

managed, and (b) quantifying overall progress towards achieving program goals.

3. Ensure changes to previously approved plans and programs are well documented and

defensible.

Recommendations:

1. Establish standards and formats for station reports that are consistent among federally owned

hatcheries in the Pacific Region. These standards should address the following: (a) type,

content and format of required documents and reports; (b) frequency of standardized reports

for hatchery operations (e.g., monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, etc.); (c) timeframes for

updating programmatic documents (e.g. HGMPs); and (d) a standardized format for

documenting management decisions and programmatic changes (a.k.a. “decisional

documents”).

2. Use the internet website for each hatchery as a primary repository and public-access source of

all reports and documents pertinent to the respective hatchery programs. Those web sites

should also include internet links to supporting documents (e.g., NOAA Fisheries status

reviews of ESA-listed species and populations). The use of the internet and web-based

technologies (e.g., SharePoint websites) for maintaining Service documents would improve

transparency and communications among Service staff and between the Service and partners.



Issue 12: Comanagers Working at Service Hatcheries

Comanaging partners of the Service (e.g., NOAA Fisheries, Tribes) often conduct research or rear fish

at Service hatcheries. The Service has standard operating procedures for rearing fish at federal

hatcheries, including specific requirements for data collection and reporting. In some cases,

comanaging partners may not be aware of Service protocols; however, the Service is still accountable

for reporting and data maintenance. For example, tag information for juvenile fish prior to release,

including marking protocols and/or tag codes, are often not reported to the Service by partners

working at Service facilities. This lack of reporting can create future problems when tagged fish with

unknown tag codes are recovered.

Guideline:

Working relationships are enhanced and conflicts minimized when comanaging partners

working at Service facilities follow the same reporting requirements as Service personnel.

These requirements include information on culture procedures and data obtained via

monitoring and evaluation. Data need to be collected and reported uniformly and consistently

for all fish spawned, reared or released from Service hatcheries, including work conducted by

comanagers. A Memorandum of Agreement, signed between the Service and comanaging

partners before comanagers conduct research or use culture facilities at National Fish

Hatcheries, could clarify roles and responsibilities, further enhancing communication and

collaboration.

Issue 13: Standard Operating Procedures

Fish hatcheries have developed a large number procedures and protocols necessary for successful

operation. Many of these protocols are very general and can be applied equally to most hatcheries with

little need for documentation (e.g., operation of motor vehicles). However, the majority of the

procedures and protocols employed in fish culture are, to some extent, hatchery-specific and require

some level of onsite training of personnel (e.g., back-flushing a filter, exercising an emergency

electrical generator). In these latter cases, protocols and procedures must be followed precisely to

ensure successful execution and, in many cases, to minimize risks to human safety. Written

documentation of these station-specific Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) is thus necessary for

precision, consistency, and safety. SOPs are an integral component of hatchery operations and can

represent the product of many years of practical experience. SOPs are equally important for both new

employees and seasoned employees who have transferred from other stations. SOPs step down BMPs

so they can be applied logically and consistently at specific installations.

Recommendations:

1. Develop, maintain, and continually update SOPs for each hatchery and each fish culture

program, including protocols for fish culture, equipment operation, and facility maintenance.

A well-developed, SOP manual at each hatchery would:

Be sufficiently detailed to allow a new employee to understand the program and to

successfully operate any component of a facility to achieve both station and program

goals;

Document all operating procedures that are essential for fish culture (e.g., egg incubation

protocols, operation of pumps, etc.) to minimize risks of fish losses;



Include the full operation of the program from administration to fish culture to equipment

maintenance;

Be updated whenever a change in an existing protocol is desired;

Be reviewed thoroughly every two to three years to ensure accuracy.

2. Use a web-based platform and the Service’s intranet for maintaining SOPs and a SOP manual

for each hatchery. Hagerman NFH provides one example of a web-based SOP manual that

could be used as a template for all Pacific Region hatcheries

(https://intranet.fws.gov/region1/hagerman). The Team has provided a list of recommended

common elements for SOP manuals at all Service hatcheries (Appendix D).

Issue 14: Monitoring and Evaluation Standards

As noted previously, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of hatchery programs are necessary to

determine whether intended benefits are realized and risks minimized. In short, M&E are necessary for

assessing whether hatchery programs are successful at achieving their goals.

The Review Team observed that Service hatcheries in the Pacific Region do not all collect and record

M&E data in the same way. These differences complicated the Review Team’s analysis of each

program.19

Recommendations:

1. Establish minimum monitoring and evaluation standards for Service hatcheries in the Pacific

Region. Minimum data collection requirements for all programs should include both

biological data (e.g., survival, growth, Density Index, Flow Index, disease incidence and

treatments) and environmental data (water temperature, total water use, oxygen levels, gas

saturation). A region-wide task team - composed of representative Service biologists from the

Fishery Program/Resource Offices, the Fish Health Centers, and the Abernathy Fish

Technology Center – could be appointed for developing the proposed M&E standards.

2. Develop a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plan for each hatchery program based on

minimum M&E standards and a standardized template. The details of each plan will need to

vary among programs to quantify program-specific benefits and risks and to evaluate whether

a program is achieving its specific goals and objectives. The HET for each hatchery could be

tasked with developing the plans for each respective program and hatchery.

Issue 15: Data Management

Several different electronic data management systems are used by federal hatcheries throughout the

Pacific Region. The use of different data management systems results in redundancies and

inconsistencies. Much of the data are stored locally and may not be accessible via the internet.

Staffs at National Fish Hatcheries in the Columbia River use many components of the Columbia River

information System (CRiS), a dBase software program, for recording data associated with hatchery

19 Table 1 of the 1993 Hatchery Evaluation Vision Action Plan of the Service lists a number of basic parameters that

could be collected, but delegated implementation responsibility and details for each program to the individual HETs.



operations. CRiS is maintained by the Service’s Columbia River Fisheries Program Office (CRFPO)

in Vancouver, Washington. The data files and programs from hatcheries and the CRFPO are used to

create long-term datasets and reports, and for uploading tag data and other information to regional

databases (e.g., Streamnet and the Regional Mark Information System). The stability of the dBase

interface and structure have proven to be very resilient over the past 25 years; however, CRiS uses a

text-based, MS-DOS interface which is generally considered outdated compared to contemporary

graphic interfaces.20

A Windows-compatible version of dBase is available and is also utilized at

CRFPO. For Windows 7 users, hatcheries use a DOS program to access CRiS. The alternative for

hatcheries is the Windows-compatible dBase Plus.

Staff at each of the three Olympic Peninsula NFHs maintain individual spreadsheets (e.g., in MS-

Excel) for recording hatchery data and then report that information to the Service’s Western

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (WWFWO) in Olympia, Washington. WWFWO staff then

enters those data into a Fisheries Resource Evaluation Database (FRED), a MS-Access database

application.

The Service’s LSRCP office in Boise, Idaho is developing a third database system for maintaining

data collected at LSRCP hatcheries and facilities and will be compatible with those used in the states

of Washington, Oregon and Idaho.

The Services’ Fisheries Information System (FIS) is an internal (Service only access), national

database system that, among other functions, is used nationwide to report the transportation and

distribution of fish from National Fish Hatcheries.

Recommendation:

Develop a single, integrated data management system for all federal hatcheries in the Pacific

Region.21

The specifications of the data management system should identify the necessary and

desired attributes and capabilities of the integrated system. The Review Team anticipates that

portions of this regional, federal hatchery database would be accessible by comanaging

partners, stakeholders, and the general public (see Issue 16). Ideally, this system would be

web-based for both uploading data and downloading data. A task team of Service data

managers (CRiS, FRED, LSRCP database, FIS) and end users could be assembled to develop

the desired specifications and draft plan.

Issue 16: Sharing Hatchery Program Data Externally

Important biological data are generated annually at all federal hatcheries throughout the Pacific

Region. A significant portion of this information is of interest to comanaging partners, stakeholders,

and the general public. For example, the number of adult fish trapped each year and their age-class

distributions over multiple years is important for assessing time trends in abundance and viability.

Those data are also important for correlating with similar data collected at state- and tribal-operated

hatcheries, particularly with respect to analyzing the effects of common environmental variables (e.g.,

marine ocean conditions, climate change).

20 MS-DOS is the acronym for Microsoft Corporation’s “Disk Operating System”. MS-DOS was considered the standard

operating system for desktop computers from the initial development of the desktop personal computer in 1981 until the mid to late 1990’s when it was replaced by Microsoft’s “Windows” operating system (e.g., MS-Windows95).

21 Integrated can mean either one system or multiple systems that share key parameters and data so that the

data/information can easily be cross-queried and compared.



At the present time, data generated each year at each federal hatchery are not readily accessible

electronically via the internet to potential user groups outside the Service. In a more general sense, the

Service currently does not have a comprehensive web-based approach for communicating biological

and related data externally to our partners (e.g., number of adult fish trapped, spawned, or surplused;

egg-to-smolt survival within the hatchery, number of smolts released, contributions of program fish to

fisheries, etc.). The Service contributes data to publically-accessible, shared data management systems

such as Streamnet and the Regional Mark Information System (RMIS), but those systems are limited:

Streamnet provides adult return data for hatcheries and RMIS is specific to data obtained via coded-

wire tags. The Salmonscape utility of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is another type

of publically accessible web-based utility, although it only provides stock status information on adult

fish.

Recommendation:

Develop a publicly accessible, interactive web-based utility that provides current and

historical data and information for the Service’s hatchery programs. This recommended utility

could be the same utility/database recommended for Issue 15 but with different access

permissions granted to the public. Several Service biologists believe this recommendation

should be the highest Service priority for hatchery programs in the Pacific Region. A

standardized and publically accessible data repository would drastically reduce the workload

for both hatchery staff and M&E staff by reducing the number of data requests from co-

managers and interested parties. Reducing the number of specific data requests would allow

for improved communication and outreach, increased staff efficiency, and opportunities for

more M&E and research.

Research

Issue 17: Research Needs

The management of natural resources deals constantly with biological risks and scientific

uncertainties. For example, understanding the stochastic and deterministic effects of variable weather

patterns, stream flows, and ocean temperatures on overall smolt-to-adult survivals and adult return

rates of Pacific salmon is fundamentally important for managing fishery resources. The ability of the

comanaging agencies and Tribes to achieve their management goals depends significantly on the

ability to resolve scientific uncertainties and understand biological and environmental processes. New

research tools are developed continuously (e.g., PIT tags, DNA methods) that allow the collection of

new types of information. Scientific research is a critical component of salmon management in the

Pacific Northwest

The Review Team identified several areas of scientific uncertainty for which targeted research is

desired. Some of the research topics identified by the Team are listed below:

Smolt-to-adult return rates, and stray rates of acclimated-release versus direct-release of

hatchery-origin juvenile fish.

Genetic and environmental factors determining the age and size-class distributions of adult

salmon and steelhead returning to freshwater, including broodstock management goals in

hatcheries and the long-term genetic effects of harvest and artificial propagation on mean age

and size of returning adults.



Development of new culture technologies to support conservation hatchery programs for

recovery of species other than salmon and steelhead, particularly for Service trust species

(e.g., bull trout, lamprey).

Evaluations of survival to adulthood of outplanted hatchery-origin fish/eggs for both

reintroduction programs and natural-spawning supplementation programs.

Efficacy of new disease treatments in fish culture.

Methods to further reduce the use of antibiotics.

Identification and biological evaluations of new or emerging strains of pathogens (e.g.,

Nucleospora salmonis, IHN virus).

Effects of high rearing densities of fry and fingerling fish on (a) overall growth and survival

prior to release as smolts and (b) total adult returns.

Evaluations of the overall strengths, weaknesses, costs, and benefits of new marking and

tagging technologies (e.g., PIT tag effects on survival, complete DNA genotyping of hatchery

broodstocks vs. use of CWTs, otolith marking and recovery).

Evaluation of water re-use and water conservation technologies.

Effects of variable size and age at release on smolt-to-adult survival and return rates,

particularly for steelhead conservation programs.

Methods to reduce fin erosion of steelhead in raceways.

Effects of (a) barging juvenile fish downstream around dams and (b) transferring eggs and fish

between hatcheries and watersheds on stray rates of returning adult fish.

Benefits vs. risks of using salmon carcasses for nutrient enhancement of streams to increase

productivity of naturally spawning populations (disease, logistical issues).

Fish nutrition and development of new feeds (e.g., low phosphorous feeds, new or alternative

sources of fish meal).

Ecological and genetic interactions between hatchery and wild fish.

Ecological effects of climate change on natural food webs, smolt-to-adult survival, and

hatchery operations (see Region-wide Issue 10).

Recommendation:

The Technical Advisory Panel (TAP), proposed previously in Issue 2 (Recommendation 2)

could be responsible for identifying and prioritizing research needs throughout the Pacific

Region (e.g., via comanager meetings, workshops, symposia). Where research gaps exist, the

TAP could help identify staff and funding sources for the desired research (e.g., by Service

personnel, USGS partners, NOAA Fisheries partners, university faculty and graduate

students). For example, most of the desired research will require additional sources of

funding for marking and tagging studies (e.g., radio/acoustic tags, PIT tags, coded-wire tags,

genetic markers).


22 Conclusions

CONCLUSIONS

Federal hatcheries in the Pacific Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have achieved a high

level of technical proficiency and management efficiency during the past 30 years. Significant

advances in our understanding of the biology of Pacific salmon, including the environmental

requirements necessary for their culture, have allowed hatcheries to reach a high level of management

sophistication. In general, these hatcheries and their respective programs have been very successful at

maintaining fishery resources throughout the Pacific Region.

The Review Team evaluated hatchery programs primarily from a scientific perspective, particularly

with respect to the three principles adapted from the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG). The

Review Team used the current state of scientific understanding and the professional knowledge of its

members as bases for its evaluations.

The Team noted that program and population goals should be stated more explicitly in terms of

desired benefits with less emphasis on “mitigation goals” or “production goals” (Issue 1). The Team

also noted several areas where scientific defensibility could be improved (Issue 2). Consistencies with

the Team’s principles and the scientific literature were driving factors in the Team’s evaluations and

recommendations. “Best management practices”, in particular, reflect scientific defensibility.

The Review Team believes that scientific information should be the foundation of hatchery

management and endorses consistent application of best science and best practices in the conduct of

Service hatchery programs. However, the Team also recognizes that socio-economic and other factors

need to be considered part of hatchery management decisions. The Team also recognizes that time

lags will always occur between publication of new scientific information and application/acceptance

of that new information to management of natural resources. Site-specific circumstances and differing

comanager strategies, from one basin to another and from one program to another, may require

different local practices and flexible management strategies. These regional or comanager differences

do not detract from the benefit or importance of using consistent methods and standards that are goal-

driven, scientifically-defensible, and accountable via adaptive management.

The Service has a unique opportunity to take a broader ecological and long-term perspective regarding

hatchery management in the 21st Century. From the Team’s perspective, hatcheries represent a type of

habitat, and the biological principles used to manage and conserve natural populations should be

applied equally to the conservation and management of hatchery populations. In this context, some

populations depend only on the hatchery environment or on the natural environment for their

reproduction and early life history survival, while other populations depend on both. The Team

believes that the region-wide guidelines and recommendations presented here can be used as a sound

biological and operational framework for managing Service hatchery programs into the future.


Appendix A: Best Management Practices for Salmon and Steelhead Culture 23

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SALMON

AND STEELHEAD CULTURE (ISSUE 5)

Broodstock Choice, Collection, and Spawning

BMP-1: Operate hatchery programs with either genetically integrated or genetically

segregated broodstocks relative to naturally-spawning populations.

A hatchery program is classified as segregated if the intent of the program is to manage

hatchery and wild fish as two separate populations or gene pools: one population adapted to

artificial propagation and the hatchery environment during its early life history, and the other

population adapted to natural reproduction and the natural environment throughout its entire

life history. Under this segregated strategy, only hatchery-origin fish are used for broodstock,

and only natural-origin fish are intended to spawn naturally. Any natural spawning by

hatchery-origin fish from a segregated population is considered a high genetic risk to natural

populations.22

The general guideline here is that hatchery fish from a genetically-segregated

hatchery population should compose less than 5% of the naturally-spawning fish within a

stream or watershed.23

A hatchery program is classified as integrated if a hatchery-propagated population is intended

to be part of the same gene pool as a specific natural population with the goal that natural

selection in the wild environment drives the mean fitness of both the hatchery and naturally-

spawning components of the population. Under this integrated strategy, natural-origin fish

must be included systematically in the hatchery broodstock each year (or each generation),

and natural spawning of hatchery-origin fish must be controlled to allow the goals of genetic

integration to be achieved. The general guidelines for integrated broodstock programs are: (a)

the proportion of the broodstock composed of natural-origin fish (pNOB) must be greater than

the proportion of the natural spawning population composed of hatchery-origin fish (pHOS);

(b) pHOS must be less than 0.30; and (c) for populations of high biological significance,

pNOB must be greater than twice pHOS (pNOB > 2∙pHOS).24.

These general guidelines apply

to situations where natural populations, in the absence of natural spawning supplementation by

hatchery fish, would be considered viable and self-sustaining. Spring Chinook in the Warm

Springs River, Oregon, is one example of this latter situation. The integrated broodstock

strategy is one approach to reduce the biological risks of hatchery-origin fish spawning

naturally. The specific guidelines outlined above for integrated populations do not apply

directly to hatchery programs that are being used to reintroduce or restore a naturally

spawning population in a particular watershed. However, these guidelines for integrated

populations would apply when the reintroduced or restored naturally-spawning population had

achieved a viable level of self-sufficiency, and the intent of the hatchery program is to

22 Exceptions to this generalization are reintroduction programs when fish from a genetically-segregated hatchery

population are released into an area where the natural population of that species is extirpated.

23 See HSRG White Paper No. 1 for scientific justification of these guidelines (www.hatcheryreform.us).

24 Ibid.


24 Appendix A: Best Management Practices for Salmon and Steelhead Culture

maintain that population at a higher level of abundance than the population can maintain by

itself without artificial propagation (e.g., to support harvest).

BMP-2: Use in-basin rearing and locally-adapted broodstocks.

Some hatchery programs, for lack of adequate facilities and/or proper escapement

management, transfer eggs and/or juvenile fish between facilities, oftentimes between

watersheds or regions. This historical practice of “backfilling” broodstock shortages with fish

or eggs from another hatchery or watershed promotes loss of local genetic adaptability to local

watersheds, creates disease transfer risks, and is expected to result in reduced productivity of

hatchery stocks. Consequently, the general practice of backfilling should be discontinued

because it circumvents the biological and evolutionary benefits of natural homing. In this

context, the biological attributes resulting from homing and local adaptation are common to

both hatchery and natural origin fish, and the same management principles are applicable to

both groups of fish.25

BMP-3: Provide a terminal recovery location and facility to trap returning adult fish to

minimize, or control, escapement of hatchery-origin fish to natural spawning areas.

In many cases, natural spawning by hatchery-origin fish may not be desired, and hatchery-

origin fish should not be allowed to spawn naturally. In other cases, controlled natural

spawning by hatchery-origin fish may be part of a broader management strategy.

BMP-4: Collect and spawn broodstock randomly from the entire spectrum of the run to

represent and maintain the natural run timing of the propagated stock.

The goal here is to allow the natural environment, not artificial selection in a hatchery, to be

the primary determinant of return and spawn timing of adults. An exception may be in

distinctly segregated programs where the management goal is to maintain a hatchery

population that is purposefully segregated by run timing and/or spawn timing from natural

populations to facilitate harvest management and/or minimize reproductive success of

hatchery-origin fish in nature.

BMP-5: Use holding containers for broodstock that provide (a) at least one cubic foot of

water for every two pounds of fish and (b) one gallon per minute (gpm) of water flow for

each 15 pounds of adult fish.

For each degree below or above 50o F, the total poundage per gpm can be increased or

decreased 5%, respectively, without flow adjustment (Senn et al. 1984, as published in IHOT

(1995) Performance Standards Policy, pages 20-21). In addition:

Ensure dissolved oxygen is > 7 mg/l and water temperature is < 55oF as described in

Tables 1 and 2 and Appendix B of IHOT (1995).

Ensure temperature differentials are < 10oF when fish are moved between containers

or water bodies (Appendix C of IHOT 1995).

25 For integrated broodstock programs, “local adaptation” implies adaptation to the natural environment for both

reproduction and survival; for segregated programs, “local adaptation” implies adaptation to the hatchery environment and artificial propagation. In both cases, “backfilling” is expected to reduce levels of adaptation.



BMP-6: Implement standardized spawning protocols consistent with IHOT and the need to

maintain a minimum genetic effective number of breeders (Campton 2004)26

:

Avoid mixing milt from two or more males prior to fertilization to avoid sperm

competition and skewed fertilization rates among males used for broodstock;

Maintain minimum effective population sizes of Ne > 500 for each established

hatchery population27

, as measured by the sum of the total number of effective

breeders over one full generation, where generation time in years is equal to the mean

age of spawners;

Include male “jacks”28

in proportion to their occurrence among all males up to a

maximum of 10% of all males, or a maximum of 10% of the eggs fertilized by jacks,

unless alternative stock-specific protocols have been established. Including jacks

enhances gene flow among brood years;

Ensure spawning protocols are consistent with the long-term breeding goals of the

stock;

Maximize the genetic effective number of breeders by accounting for unequal sex

ratios of males and females available for broodstock29

;

Adapt spawning protocols to the physical constraints of the facility where adult fish

are spawned.

Incubation and Rearing

BMP-7: Follow the incubation recommendations in Tables 5-13 of IHOT (1995) for guidance

on egg capacities and recommended water flows in incubators, unless alternative protocols

can be justified from previous studies at the facility.

BMP-8: If eyed-egg to smolt mortality exceeds 10%, conduct studies to determine the

appropriate carrying capacity (flow and density indices) of the rearing containers (troughs,

tanks, raceways, ponds, etc.) used in the hatchery.

Each hatchery should establish carrying capacities based on their particular constraints such as

water chemistry, pathogen presence, species and stock. IHOT (1995)30

recommendations state

26 Campton, D.E. 2004. Sperm competition in salmon hatcheries: the need to institutionalize genetically benign

spawning protocols. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133; 1277-1289.

27 This BMP guideline applies primarily to established, self-sustaining populations. This guideline does not apply directly

to captive breeding programs or the initial generations of conservation programs where the number of adult fish available for broodstock is expected to be limited. However, once established, hatchery-propagated populations are expected to be self-sustaining and large enough to prevent loss of genetic variation due to genetic drift.

28 Jacks by species: Fall Chinook = 2 year old male, coho = 2 year old male, spring Chinook = 3 year old male, and

chum = 2 year old male.

29 For example, the effective number of breeders per year can be increased by subdividing the eggs from each female

into two portions, and then fertilizing the eggs in each portion with a different male for hatchery stocks that have male-biased sex ratios.

30 Integrated Hatchery Operations Team. 1995. Policies and Procedures for Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid

Hatcheries. Report to Bonneville Power Administration. Contract No. 1992BI60629, Project No. 199204300, 119 p. BPA Report DOE/BP-60629. Chapter 4. Performance Standards for Hatchery Operations, p. 31-32.



that “thresholds limiting capacity should be determined and recorded in hatchery plans

through a process described by Piper et al. (1992)”.31

The following fish density guidelines are intended to be starting points for establishing site-

specific culture guidelines for Chinook, coho, and steelhead at each facility. The guidelines

below are based on the collective experience of Service fish health experts, Service fish

culture experts, and Review Team members. The density indices (DI) listed below are lower

than previously published guidelines (e.g., Piper et al. 1992)32

; however many of these former

guidelines refer to rainbow trout, and density guidelines for salmon and steelhead are often

outdated or not available. Hatchery-specific guidelines that differ from the guidelines below

would need to be justified with empirical or experimental data.

Maximum DI Maximum DI

Species Early Rearing Final Rearing (e.g., final six months)

Chinook Salmon33

0.20 0.20

Coho Salmon 0.20 0.20

Steelhead 0.50 0.20

BMP-9: Attempt to maintain a flow index (FI) less than FI=1.0 or a flow that maintains a

minimum of 80% oxygen saturation in the rearing unit outflow to minimize stress and

potential disease outbreaks.34

In addition, a minimum water exchange rate of two volumetric

turnovers per raceway/container per hour is recommended.

The Team recognizes that achieving desired water flows is not always possible due to water

availability, temperature, and other water quality issues that can arise. Adjustments to these

guidelines may be necessary, or desired, to account for altitude and water temperature (Refer

to Piper et al. 1992).

BMP-10: Monitor water quality parameters regularly to verify consistency with the 1995

IHOT guidelines for dissolved oxygen levels (> 7 mg/l) and water temperatures.

Table 1 of IHOT (1995) provides water temperature guidance by salmonid species with a

recommended range of 48oF to 60

oF for rearing juvenile fish. Regarding the incoming water

supply, “Water should be manipulated mechanically if dissolved oxygen is less than 90%

saturation and if dissolved nitrogen is greater than 102% saturation (Senn et al. 1984; as cited

by IHOT 1995).”

31 Piper, R.G., I.B. McElwain, L.E. Orme, J.P. McCraren, L.G. Fowler, and J.R. Leonard. 1992. Fish Hatchery

Management, 5th edition. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.

32 IBID.

33 These maximum rearing densities are applicable primarily for fall (“ocean-type”) Chinook. Empirical data and

personal observations by fish health biologists indicate that maximum rearing densities of D.I. = 0.15 significantly reduce fish health risks for spring (“stream-type”) Chinook (see Recommendation LE6b for Leavenworth NFH in the Columbia Cascade Province Review Report). Some fish health biologists have recommended D.I. = 0.10 to further reduce fish health risks for spring Chinook.

34 Wedemeyer, Gary A. 1996. Water Quality Requirements, pgs 72-74, Physiology of Fish in Intensive Culture

Systems”. Chapman Hall, New York, New York.



BMP-11: For steelhead, closely monitor their mean size and variance in fork length (FL)

during culture by taking a representative sample of fish at least quarterly throughout the

rearing cycle.

Samples should include a minimum of 100 individuals randomly dipped from a

crowded/pooled group of fish in one or two raceways. Use these data to calculate the

coefficient of variation (CV) for the sampled fish to minimize residualism of released hatchery

steelhead. The NOAA size criteria for size at release of hatchery-origin steelhead smolts is

180 mm to 250 mm (fork length) with a CV less than 10%.35

If CV is greater than 10%,

consider sorting (grading) juvenile steelhead among raceways by size so they can be reared to

meet target size at release with lower CVs. To reduce the need for grading, investigate fish

culture practices and implement changes to reduce the CV to less than 10%. For example,

combine female egg lots by size, chill eggs during incubation to adjust development rates

among egg takes, etc.

BMP-12: Minimize the use of antibiotics to control bacterial diseases with the desired goal of

managing disease through husbandry.

The incidence and severity of bacterial and other infectious diseases is strongly correlated with

husbandry practices. Antibiotics should only be used when attempts to prevent disease

through good culture practices have failed, and a Service Fish Health Center recommends that

antibiotics are most likely required to prevent unacceptable losses in a fish population.

Husbandry practices related to reducing disease risks include (a) careful management of

density and flow indices, (b) attention to raceway cleanliness and water turnover rates, (c)

feeding practices, (d) water quality, (e) biosecurity, and (f) egg incubation. Incubating eggs

can be chilled to delay hatch and reduce density indexes during summer when water

temperatures are high and flows may be low, thereby reducing the need to restrict feed and

retard growth in summer.

BMP-13: Remove and properly dispose of dead juvenile fish daily.

Dead fish are potential sources of pathogens and need to be removed and properly disposed as

soon as possible. NPDES prohibits the discharge of dead fish directly into rivers or other

waters. In addition, hatchery managers and staff need to be aware of state and local codes

regarding placement of “mort pits” proximate to surface water and groundwater supplies.

Release and Outmigration

BMP-14: Measure oxygen levels in raceways and ponds and assess stress to fish when

crowded and loaded for transportation.

Assess post-release survivals 24 to 48 hours after transportation and release as a standard

monitoring practice. Take actions based on results of M&E studies to reduce stress points.

Also follow fish transportation guidelines in Appendix C of IHOT (1995).

35 National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2007. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological

Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. USFWS Artificial Propagation Programs in the Lower Columbia and Middle Columbia River. Seattle, Washington.



BMP-15: The Hatchery Evaluation Team (HET) for each program should meet at least twice

annually— after spawning of adult fish is complete and prior to tagging of juvenile fish—to

plan and discuss tagging strategies.

Tagged fish need to represent the entire brood year of progeny from all spawn groups.

Consequently, the progeny of all spawn groups should be represented proportionately among

tag groups and raceways.

BMP-16: Mark or tag all fish released from Service facilities.

The population dynamics and general age/size class structures of hatchery-origin fish differ

from those of natural-origin fish. Marks or tags, including DNA markers, allow hatchery and

natural-origin fish to be distinguished as part of overall M&E, thus allowing both benefits and

risks of hatchery programs to be assessed. Many different types of marks or tags can be

applied depending on the situation (e.g., adipose-fin clip, otolith mark, elastomer tags, PIT

tags, DNA markers).

BMP-17: Representative groups of fish for each stock released from Service facilities should

be given coded-wire tags to improve monitoring and evaluation efforts.

Each representative group should typically consist of 25,000-200,000 fish. The specific

number of fish to tag depends on survival rates of specific stocks, harvest recovery patterns,

sampling rates, the specific evaluation needs, and the desired statistical accuracy of the

evaluations. For example, the purpose of many hatchery programs is to provide harvest

benefits. To describe contribution to fisheries, the standard established by the Pacific States

Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) Mark Committee is to mark sufficient numbers of

fish to obtain a minimum 30 observed recoveries in fisheries, as reported in the Regional Mark

Information System (RMIS).36

A corresponding tag recovery rate also needs to be established

that achieves the desired statistical sample size for the returning population. A 20% sampling

rate of fish harvested in a fishery is considered standard .37

BMP-18: PIT tag representative groups of fish for each stock released from Service facilities

in the Columbia River upstream of Bonneville Dam to allow in-season monitoring of

outmigration survival of juvenile fish and return timing and abundance of adult fish.

PIT tag detectors have been installed at Bonneville Dam to facilitate this within-season

monitoring.

BMP-19: Discontinue fry outplants for Chinook, coho and steelhead unless those actions are

part of an approved plan for achieving a specific goal and defined benefit of a program.

If fry releases are part of an approved plan for achieving a specific program goal, then a

specific number of fry to be released annually at each designated location should be a stated

objective of the program. Fry should not be outplanted simply because the number of juvenile

36 (a)Dammers, W. and R.D. Mills. 2002. Annual coded-wire tag program. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Report to Bonneville Power Administration. (b) Lewis, M. and W. Murray. 2004. Annual coded-wire tag program. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Report to Bonneville Power Administration. (c) Pastor, S.M. 2010. Annual coded-wire tag program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report to Bonneville Power Administration.

37 This sampling rate is consistent with the informal goal for the Washington and Oregon coast, including marine area

fisheries. The goal may be reflected in Fish Marking Techniques: Proceedings of the International Symposium and Educational Workshop on Fish Marking Techniques (American Fisheries Society Symposium 7) Edited by N.C. Parker, A.E. Giorgi, R.C. Heidinger, D.B. Jester, Jr., E.D. Prince, and G.A. Winans 893 pages, 1990.



fish exceeds the capacity of the hatchery, or more fish were produced than needed to meet

smolt-release objectives. Instead, excess fish should be culled, or removed, at the egg stage.

Studies have shown that fry outplants result in very low survival to adulthood, provide little if

any benefit to harvest, and pose biological risks to natural populations via competition.38

If

managers conclude that fry outplants can contribute directly to achieving program goals with

minimal risks to natural populations, then a corresponding monitoring and evaluation program

should be developed to assess whether the intended benefits of the fry outplants are indeed

realized relative to the biological risks. For example, a smolt trap could provide estimates of

the total number of smolts resulting from each fry outplant (Note: physically applied marks or

DNA markers could be used to identify fish resulting from fry outplants). In addition,

outmigrating hatchery-origin smolts could be marked or tagged to assess smolt-to-adult

survivals and contributions to harvest.

BMP-20: Implement pre-release inspections of all fish at federally-funded LSRCP hatcheries

operated by state agencies (conducted 4-6 weeks before release or transfer) as required by

USFWS fish health policy FW 713, the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT), and

the Washington comanagers’ policy.

These inspections require a sample of at least 60 fish to ensure a 95% confidence for detecting

pathogens at the minimum prevalence level of 5%, as per the American Fisheries Society, Fish

Health Section Blue Book requirements. Juvenile salmonids should be tested for viruses,

bacteria and parasites.39

BMP-21: Adopt strategies, based on the results of monitoring and evaluation, to minimize

post-release residualism of juvenile steelhead and maximize the likelihood of downstream

migration survival to the ocean, unless a specific objective is to release juvenile, hatchery-

origin steelhead into unoccupied freshwater habitats where potential residualism may not be

an issue.

Alternative release strategies could experiment with size, age, and time of release. Another

experiment could investigate forced vs. volitional release strategies. In absence of new

information provided by monitoring and evaluation, the NOAA-Fisheries criteria for size at

release of hatchery-origin steelhead smolts should be followed (180 mm to 250 mm, with a

coefficient of variation less than 10%).

Monitoring and Evaluation

BMP-22: Establish a monitoring and evaluation plan for every action intended to achieve a

particular goal or benefit.

38 (a) Kostow, K., A. Marshall, and S.R. Phelps. 2003. Natural Spawning Hatchery Steelhead Contribute to Smolt

Production but Experience Low Reproductive Success. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 132: 780-790. (b) Theriault, V., G.R. Moyer, and M.A. Banks. 2010. Survival and life-history characteristics among wild and hatchery coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) returns: how do unfed fry differ from smolt releases? Canadian Journal of Aquatic Sciences. 67: 486-497. (c) Naish, K.A., Taylor J.E., Levin P.S., Quinn T.P., Winton J.R., Huppert D., Hilborn, R. 2008. An evaluation of the effects of conservation and fishery enhancement hatcheries on wild populations of salmon. Advances in Marine Biology 53, 61-194. (d) Nickelson, T. 2003. The influence of hatchery coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) on the productivity of wild coho salmon populations in Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60:1050-1056.

39 The Review Team recommends that all federal hatcheries meet the Blue Book requirement. This AFS-FHC Blue Book

protocol is currently implemented for all NFH programs. However, the Team concluded that state operated LSRCP hatcheries are – in general – not satisfying the Blue Book requirement.



For example, transporting and outplanting hatchery-origin adult fish from a hatchery to a

particular tributary is presumably intended to contribute to a specific goal or provide a specific

benefit. That goal and desired benefit need to be defined (Issue 1), and some level of M&E

would be necessary to determine whether the desired goal and/or the intended benefit is

achieved. M&E is also required to determine whether the realized benefits of the action

outweigh the risks. A benefit-risk assessment before the action is taken – based on a review of

the scientific literature and other available information – would most likely be desired.

Facilities and Operations

BMP-23: Divert all wastewater resulting from the cleaning of raceways and ponds, and

wastewater generated during the spawning of adult fish, to a pollution abatement pond or

special containment area with possible effluent disinfection.

All hatchery effluent must meet NPDES permit requirements.40

BMP-24: Ensure that water supplies are secure from highway spills, vehicle intrusions,

vandalism, avian defecation, and other sources of contamination.

Hatchery staff should investigate, with engineering personnel, the feasibility of protecting

water supplies from such hazards.

BMP-25: Maintain shade covers over outdoor rearing units, particularly during summer

months to decrease crowding in limited shaded areas.

Similar covers should be installed over adult holding ponds for spring Chinook salmon that

must be held on station for extended periods during the summer months.

BMP-26: Maintain complete predator exclusion mechanisms (e.g., fencing and bird netting)

around all outdoor rearing units to minimize predation loss, reduce stress of fish due to

predator harassment (e.g., from birds), and reduce the risk of disease transmission between

rearing units.

BMP-27: Develop and implement a biosecurity plan at each facility to reduce the risk of

human transmission of fish pathogens or invasive species.

Such plans are particularly important for facilities that provide direct stream access by anglers,

other fishers, and boats. Actions to consider at specific facilities could include the following:

Develop stream access points that limit the number of fishers crossing facility grounds

and/or provide signage to direct fishers away from fish culture areas. New access points

could be compatible with the Americans with Disabilities Act criteria (ADA compatible).

Develop isolated parking areas for boat trailers. Add signage to educate the public on

issues of pathogen contamination and invasive species.

Implement precautionary measures to reduce the risks of pathogen contamination on

hatchery grounds (e.g., provide rolls of plastic bags at angler access points to reduce the

biological risks of transporting unwrapped harvested fish).

40 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 2009. Authorization to Discharge under the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Permit No. WAG-13-0000.


Appendix B: Best Management Practices for Outreach 31

APPENDIX B: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR

OUTREACH (ISSUE 6)

The following guidelines and recommendations and example messages were developed jointly by the

Hatchery Review Team and Service outreach staff.41

These recommendations are intended to represent

best management practices for outreach related to Service hatchery programs. The goal of these

recommendations is to obtain stronger, coordinated communications with partners, stakeholders, and

the interested public.

Guideline A: Identify the message.42

Establish consistent, well-developed outreach messages about each hatchery program for each Service

facility. Ensure each message has the same elements: (1) description of the program, (2) benefits of the

program, quantified where possible, and (3) actions taken to manage or reduce risks.

1. Describe the program.

a) Clearly state program goals.

Example message: Fall Chinook at Spring Creek NFH. The goal of the program is to

annually contribute a minimum of 12,000 fall Chinook adults to Columbia River fisheries

and 12,000 fall Chinook adults to marine fisheries in Washington, Oregon, British

Columbia, and Alaska. A corollary goal is to maintain and propagate the native tule Fall

Chinook stock that historically spawned in the White Salmon River and adjacent areas of the

Columbia River before those spawning habitats were flooded by the pool behind Bonneville

Dam. Approximately 8,000 adult broodstock and a minimum recruit per spawner of 4.0 (R/S

> 4.0)43

are needed to meet these program goals.

b) Provide a Program Overview: Include why the program exists and how the program is

operated to achieve its goals.

Example message: The tule fall Chinook program at Spring Creek NFH mitigates for the

loss of habitat and fish populations caused by the construction and operation of Bonneville,

The Dalles, and John Day dams. The program meets it mitigation responsibilities by

propagating an indigenous, locally-adapted population that contributes to sport, commercial,

tribal, and international harvests.

Example message: Adult tule fall Chinook typically return to Spring Creek NFH from

August to early October. A total of 8,000 adults (4,000 females) are collected at the hatchery

for broodstock, yielding approximately 20 million eggs. The program needs to achieve a

41 This section was co-developed with Pacific Region outreach staff, Amy Gaskill and Cheri Anderson.

42 The specific numbers used in the example messages are presented for illustrative purposes only. The actual

numbers of fish released, etc. can change via comanager agreements or in response to specific issues.

43 R/S refers to the number of “recruit” fish surviving to adulthood - and potentially available for harvest - per adult fish

spawned in the hatchery. For example, if the goal of the hatchery program is to contribute a minimum of 12,000 adult fish to Columbia River fisheries and a minimum of 12,000 adult fish to marine fisheries, while maintaining the hatchery-propagated population with a minimum productivity of R/S > 4.0, then a minimum of 8,000 adult broodstock would be necessary to meet those combined goals (32,000 adult fish per year) In practice, harvest goals would most likely be established based on the physical capabilities of the hatchery and the minimum expected (or predicted) value of R/S.


32 Appendix B: Best Management Practices for Outreach

minimum 75% survival rate from fertilized egg to smolt stage to achieve its release objective

of 15 million subyearling smolts per year.

Example message: Spring Creek NFH rears 6.95 million and 5.25 million subyearling

smolts annually for the John Day Dam and Mitchell Act mitigation programs, respectively,

for a total release of 12.2 million fall Chinook smolts per year. Of those fish, 10.5 million

smolts are released at Spring Creek NFH, and 1.7 million smolts are transferred to the Little

White Salmon NFH in March for acclimation and release one to two months later. The total

number of fish released at Spring Creek NFH is split between April (6.5 million fish) and

May (4.0 million fish) to maximize overall survival. In addition, 3.0 million eyed-eggs are

transferred to Bonneville State Hatchery (Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife) in

October/November each year for a subsequent release of 2.8 million smolts the following

spring from that facility.

2. Indicate program benefits. Identify and quantify, where possible, the specific harvest,

conservation, or other benefits (e.g., research, cultural) that the hatchery program has achieved.

Realized benefits need to be explained in some detail. For example, is there harvest associated

with the program? If so, what does the program contribute? If the program has conservation

benefits, what is the expectation of the population being conserved? How are conservation benefits

measured or quantified? The benefits section should directly relate to the program goals,

demonstrating the extent to which the goals are achieved, exceeded, or not achieved. This section

is where the public understands the overall realized benefits of the program, including details

regarding secondary benefits (e.g., research, education, and cultural benefits).

Example message: Tule fall Chinook from Spring Creek NFH have contributed a 10-year

average (brood years 1990-1999) of 18,994 adult fish per year to fisheries in the Columbia

River and approximately 18,098 adult fish per year to marine fisheries in Washington,

Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska. Those harvested fish represent approximately 33%

and 31%, respectively, of the total number of adult fish available for harvest from the

hatchery program.

Example message: The hatchery population serves as a genetic repository for Chinook

salmon that were native historically to the White Salmon River, the original founding source

for the Spring Creek NFH stock. The propagated population is maintained at a high level of

viability with a mean adult recruit per spawner of approximately 5.6 (mean R/S = 5.6 for

brood years 1990-1999). The National Marine Fisheries Service includes this hatchery stock

with the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)

which is listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The Spring Creek NFH

population is also considered the stock of choice for reintroduction of fall Chinook salmon

into the White Salmon River after the pending removal of Condit Dam.

3. Describe how risks are managed. “Risks’, by definition, represent the probability or likelihood

of a hazard occurring. The hazards themselves cannot be eliminated (e.g. fish diseases, ecological

competition between hatchery and wild fish), but the likelihood of their occurrence can be reduced

via scientific research, monitoring and evaluation, and adaptive management. Indeed, the

principles of “scientific defensibility” and “informed decision making” are intended to reduce

risks as much as they are intended to increase benefits to maximize the overall benefit-risk ratio

that is a key measure of “success” of hatchery programs. In this context, it is important for

outreach personnel to identify, to the public, the measures and actions taken by the Service to

reduce the biological and environmental risks of hatchery programs. For example, the intensive

disease monitoring programs of the Service’s Fish Health Centers make major contributions to

reducing the biological risks of hatchery programs, not only to the populations propagated in

hatcheries, but also to natural populations in the watershed. The extensive fin-clipping and coded-


Appendix B: Best Management Practices for Outreach 33

wire tagging programs of the Service, along with direct genetic analyses via DNA markers, allow

genetic risks to natural populations to be monitored and evaluated. Of special concern here are

potential genetic and ecological interactions between hatchery-origin fish and ESA-listed natural

populations. Examples of reducing risks in this latter category include: (a) the use of localized

broodstocks derived from indigenous populations (e.g., Spring Creek NFH fall Chinook, Warm

Springs NFH spring Chinook), (b) the recapture of returning hatchery-origin adults in excess of

broodstock needs to reduce straying and interbreeding with natural populations44

, and smolt

release practices – developed as a result of applied scientific research - that reduce residualism and

competition with natural populations and other aquatic species.

Example message: The Spring Creek NFH tule fall Chinook population was founded from

the local, native White Salmon River population beginning in 1901. Since that time,

management of stock integrity and genetic diversity have been high priorities. Fish or eggs

from other populations of fall Chinook have rarely, if ever, been transferred to Spring Creek

NFH for on-station release. Adult fish are collected for broodstock exclusively from fish

returning via the hatchery ladder. Adult fish are collected for broodstock during the entire

period that fish are returning to the hatchery to maximize genetic diversity of the progeny

fish that are reared and released.

Example message: All hatchery adults returning to Spring Creek NFH are collected and

used for either broodstock or other benefits/purposes. This practice maximizes the potential

benefits of the program while reducing risks to natural populations that occur when hatchery

salmon stray to natural spawning areas.

Example message: All hatchery-origin salmon released from Spring Creek NFH are marked

with an adipose-fin clip to distinguish hatchery-origin fish from natural-origin fish during

harvest, on natural salmon spawning grounds, and when the fish return to the hatchery.

Portions of the hatchery stock are also given coded-wire tags and/or PIT (Passive Integrated

Transponder) tags to monitor migration, survival, harvest rates, and track potential straying

to natural salmon spawning grounds.

Guideline B: Identify the audience.

Identify audiences and stakeholders, and then strategically communicate consistent program messages,

similar to the outreach message described above. This engagement needs to be relative and useful to

these groups and individuals. The cultural/social perspectives of audiences may vary among

geographic locations, so outreach messages can be tailored accordingly.45

Guideline C: Identify and update communication media.

Ensure Service messages are up to date and conveyed with transparency and in cooperation with our

comanagers and stakeholders. Use outreach message similar to the example messages described in

Guideline A to provide consistency.

Use multiple tools to convey these messages across transparent mechanisms such as fact

sheets, brochures, and monthly reports posted on up-to-date web sites. Documents posted on

44 The recapture of hatchery-origin fish (in excess of broodstock needs) not only reduces risks to natural populations,

but those “surplus” fish can also provide benefits via contributions to Tribes, public food banks, or private commercial interests (e.g., pet food).

45 Outreach staff should refer to the Pacific Region Fisheries Outreach Action Plan (USFWS 2005) for list of stakeholders

and strategic approaches for achieving successful, open, and transparent communications.


34 Appendix B: Best Management Practices for Outreach

websites for each hatchery should be hyperlinked to additional web-based documents on

partner and other Service sites.

Any public document produced about the facility and programs should be posted on facility

web sites (e.g., annual reports, Annual Operating Plans, Hatchery Genetic Management Plans,

fact sheets, a list of points of contact, etc.).

Include environmental education components at each facility by providing updated printed

materials, self-guided tour maps, visitor contact areas, and updated signage. Consider the

geographic location of the facility (demographics of local residents, number of visitors, etc.)

and target audience when choosing the education components to implement.

Solicit comments from the public and stakeholders via surveys/forms at each facility and

email contact links on facility web sites.

Outreach and Service personnel can participate in scheduled stakeholder/interest group

meetings (e.g., local angling clubs) and speak at these meetings on Service issues as requested

or desired. Outreach staff should be available to respond to questions and open dialog.

Meetings between Service staff and stakeholder groups can be held to ensure concerns of the

public are addressed in management decisions.


Appendix C: Managing for Climate Change 35

APPENDIX C: MANAGING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE (ISSUE 10)

The white paper of Hanson and Ostrand (2011)46

addresses three components of hatcheries: (a)

Facilities, (b) Monitoring and Evaluation, and (c) Research. A selected subset of those

recommendations is presented below.

Facilities:

Monitor spring, well, and surface water temperatures, flows, and recharge durations to

establish timelines of past and current trends for assessing future changes.

Develop contingency fish culture plans in response to projected changes in water availability.

Continue to rigorously monitor pathogen incidence and disease outbreaks.

Evaluate rearing and flow/density guidelines in response to changing environmental

parameters and potential increased susceptibility of cultured fish to pathogenic organisms.

Evaluate density dependent stressors associated with hatchery practices and production

mandates.

Follow practices from the Service’s greening policy to reduce the Region’s carbon footprint.

Monitoring

Monitor migration timing of smolts and adults via time-series analyses.

Monitor migration range expansions or contractions of propagated species to reveal long-term

trends.

Monitor range expansions of aquatic invasive species and indigenous aquatic species that may

be resilient to climate change and better adapted than salmonid fishes to changing aquatic

conditions.

Monitor and evaluate range expansions and infectivity of fish pathogens in response to climate

change effects on aquatic ecosystems

Research

Integrate life-history characteristics of geographically-defined fish populations with

downscaled climate change models to determine biological, logistical, and monetary impacts

to National Fish Hatcheries and conservation goals.

Develop contingency plans for rearing alternative species/stocks at existing Service hatcheries

if those facilities become unsuitable for rearing anadromous salmonid fishes. For example,

some facilities might be used to propagate threatened and endangered aquatic species that are

better adapted to the new water conditions.

46 Hanson, K.C., and K.G. Ostrand. 2011. Potential effects of global climate change on National Fish Hatchery

operations in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 1:175-186.


36 Appendix D: Standard Operating Procedures Manual

APPENDIX D: RECOMMENDED ELEMENTS OF A STANDARD

OPERATING PROCEDURES MANUAL (ISSUE 13)

The Hatchery Review Team is composed of several Service employees who, collectively, have several

decades of experience working at National Fish Hatcheries. Some of these Team members are

currently managers of Service hatcheries. The Team recommends that SOP manuals for Service

hatcheries include the following list of items, where applicable. Additional items may be desired or

required on a hatchery-by-hatchery basis.

Broodstock collection:

1) Fish ladder operation

2) Water management

3) Number of adult fish to collect for broodstock and maintenance procedures prior to

spawning

4) Disposal of excess and spawned out adult fish

5) Treatments for adult fish to control disease and pre-spawning mortality

Spawning of adults:

6) Spawning protocols

7) Number of eggs needed and expected fecundities of female fish

8) Disinfection and related chemical treatment of eggs

9) Spawning equipment maintenance and disinfection (pre/during/post/season)

Incubation of eggs:

10) Incubation protocols

11) Documenting temperature units (TUs) and predicting onset and completion of critical

developmental phases: eye development of embryos (“eye-up”), hatching of eggs, and full

absorption of yolk sac (“button-up”).

12) Identification of dead eggs (“egg shocking”) and removal procedures

13) Water management: control of incubation temperature

Ponding of fry/fingerling fish:

14) Expected ponding dates, schedule, and procedures

15) Water management: monitoring water flow rates and oxygen levels

16) Estimating initial and final (a) water flow indexes (F.I.) and (b) fish density indexes (D.I.)

17) Apportioning fish into two or more raceways/ponds when D.I. or F.I. guidelines are

exceeded.

18) Procedures for tracking growth rates of fish: sampling procedures, sample sizes, estimating

length frequencies, maintaining inventories


Appendix D: Standard Operating Procedures Manual 37

19) Cleaning procedures for raceways, ponds, nursery tanks, and incubator trays.

20) Pond management when rearing more than one stock or species.

Feeding of fish:

21) Types of feeds used

22) Ordering fish food

23) Feed size changes and expected dates

24) Expected changes in feeding procedures (e.g., Hand feeding vs. auto feeders vs. response

feeders)

Tagging and marking of fish:

25) Number of fish to be tagged and/or marked

26) Dates for marking and pond management

27) Coordination with marking crews

Fish health:

28) Procedures for contacting fish health specialists (USFWS, Tribal, state)

29) Use of medications and chemotherapeutants

a. Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD)

b. Investigational procedures for new animal drugs

30) Water management procedures to reduce fish health risks (e.g., selection of water sources

and water treatment)

Release and distribution of fish:

31) Water management

32) Contacts and permits necessary for release

33) Distribution vehicle procedures

34) Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) Plan

Wastewater management:

35) Water rights

a. Water use measurements and reporting

b. Water source adjustments in response to variation in availability (seasonal, emergency,

etc.)

36) Water chemistry

a. Sampling

b. Analyses


38 Appendix D: Standard Operating Procedures Manual

Water pollution abatement

37) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit

38) NPDES Best Management Practices (BMPs)

39) NPDES Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan

40) Completing NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRS) for EPA

41) Maintenance of wastewater facilities

Documentation:

42) Required reports, frequency (e.g., monthly, annually), and deadlines

43) Comanager, stakeholder, and public distribution lists for required reports, including internet

webpage postings

44) User’s guides for data collection databases used by the Service (e.g., FIS, CRiS, etc.)

Facility and equipment maintenance:

45) Routine maintenance for major equipment

46) Regular maintenance needs for all mission critical equipment and structures

47) Testing and regular maintenance needs for alarm systems, emergency backup systems, and

water treatment systems

Pacific Region Fishery Resources 911 NE 11

th Avenue

Portland, OR 97232 503/872.2763 E-Mail: [email protected] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service www.fws.gov For Pacific Region Hatchery Review Information www.fws.gov/pacific/Fisheries/Hatcheryreview/ The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. May 2013